Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion/archive68

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion.

Delete Not often I'd nom something of length or Animeness, but somebody kept drawing my attention back to it's awfulness by moving it. It's still awful if you're a Poke-fan, right? -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 19:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unknownfile, I refuse to go to another page just to find out what the fuck you're talking about... Even these pages deserve more than four fingers of typing time. Sorry to be rude. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Article under the same name deleted April 13; new article begun a few days later. Perhaps this page should be blocked from future articles being created? Rogpyvbc 08:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, just to be clearer as to the problem - with the exception of the usual lame retard jokes in the quotes, the article is just someone's opinion, rather than being humourous. The author seems to be venting his (oops, I madly add "or her") frustration with PC attitudes. It's explanatory rather than funny. Plus the page will eventually become a magnet for slurs. Rogpyvbc 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, the concept could be good but the current version is just first person opinion cruft, not an article. I did like the TOC being all the same title though. But yeah, this version sucks. Could be hilarious, but isn't. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.001:54, 10 May 2007

It's a rip-off of Idiocracy. Where it deviates from the "real" Brawndo, it isn't funny. Lastly, it was whored on the forums. This, friends, makes it a triple threat. One or two I can forgive, but three is an outrageous affront to whatever it is that we stand for. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 03:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It will be re-written sooner if it doesn't already exist. Rogpyvbc 04:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete We had a whole carry on a while back about whether to rename this as Caret or keep it as ^, when all the while we should probably have been wondering where to bury it. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Contrary to other votes, I think this is actually quite well done, sure its a bit listy, but its appropriate for this article. Needs the red links cleaned up but otherwise is pretty ok. Not huffworthy imo. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.012:16, 09 May 2007

Surprisingly, keep. It's a parody of bullshit critics bullshit critiques. Y'know, those blowhards that see a lightswitch in a gallery and drone on about the "...play between shadow and light...", and "The switch itself is in the up position, indicating the joy of lightness...". I'd prefer a different title, but keep none the less. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 08:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate the title, but on principle, I support this article. I also appreciate that its being discussed rather than some Admin just wiffing it on their own. DameGUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 11:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

*fixes edit conflict* Um, that was a keep vote, right? If so, I concur: Keep. At least there's an attempt at "literary analysis" here. This has potential for expansion (for inclusion in Category:AGH MY EYES or something similar?), so it is just worth keeping. Pentium5dot1 22:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A year ago I created an article named CRAP which an admin zapped within seconds of it being posted. The explaination that I received was that it was too like AAA, even though CRAP was a bite more intricate (IMHO) and appropriate given the word CRAP. So while I support this article (as a parody of a parody), I'm a little PO'd that this article survived and at least was given an up or down vote while my article was trashed by an over zealous admin. That said, I feel better. DameGUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 11:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Another example of this is Fisher Price. On what should have been a routine QVFD zap, Uncyclopedia came and made it a god. Jedibob5 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nom and Delete - I just saw this created in Recent Changes. It sucks. It's not even completely random. It's self-reference though, and someone might get angry if I put it on QuickVFD. -- Pigeon 09:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ick by definition, this doesn't really even qualify as "text" --THINKER 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete There is nothing random about this - its static. Now if it changed with each page refresh, then you'd be cooking with gas... DameGUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 11:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Delorted. In future, though, be sure to use QVFD for this sort of stuff. Cheers. -- HindleyiteConverse 11:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I live near Bentley. It has a population of around 7500, and nobody outside Bentley really cares about it. I actually contributed to this article when I was a naive n00b. Oh yeah, and the whole Krobsta thing is vanity. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep and fix - This is one of the kind of articles that is mostly retarded, but some people will find funny. For example, I found Keith Richards hilarious, even though it is so listy. Remove all of the crap from this and you have yourself a keepworthy article. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 05:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kleep See Cs; Couldn't have said that one better. Lot of funny in there already (...the stupidest possible combination of sounds that were just barely within the parameters of what could be called music...). And just because I have to mention it every time I see or hear them: I fucking hate Linkin Park. Reflex, you know.. --THINKER 00:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete

sorry about adding more than I promised to, but this has got to go. just not funny and huge list at the end --» >UF|TLK|▋» 04:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Hmmm I'd say there is still redeemable bits in there, could definately be expanded to an article of funniness. At least its better than the usual crap we get on here. Ceridwyntalk contribs arc2.006:35, 04 May 2007

to all those voting keep, please reread. if it hasn't been expanded in ages and noone's bothered to rewrite it, it might as well go --» >UF|TLK|▋» 02:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I just don't agree that anything that stays still for a year or two has to be squashed. There are featured articles in the same position. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 09:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats "So good it doesn't need to be touched" vs. "Abandoned". Which is which? Only Thunderdome can say.. --THINKER 02:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)